The ‘Radicalized Base’ Problem

We are living in a time of ‘make believe’. Political leaders pursue double lives as performance artists on cable TV and social media. Real news merged with fake news in the early 2000s, when “The Daily Show” revolutionized how political news is presented. Jon Stewart effectively turned national politics into entertainment and blurred the distinction between news of significance and news that serves mainly to amuse.

Amidst this media environment of tragicomedy and illusion, the descent of political discourse into absurdity was perhaps inevitable. The Republican Party’s parallel drift away from democratic norms, however, was not inevitable, but occurred nevertheless, spurred on by demagoguery and enabled by cable television’s hunger for ratings and advertising dollars, the consequences be damned.

The question now confronting us is: How does the country extract itself from this mess? Related questions might be: How long will it take for U.S. politics to return to Cold War-Era standards of normalcy? And what obstacles stand in the way of a return to more mundane politics?

At first blush, the answer to the first question might go something like this: Politics will return to normal when the elected leaders who have made it abnormal are turned out of office. From this vantage point, President Trump’s 2020 electoral defeat, if followed by the electoral defeats of Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham on the Right and – it can well be argued – several elected leaders on the Left – would be decisive steps toward the normalization of American politics.

There is much truth to this view. The electoral repudiation of extreme political actors would remove them from government affairs and serve as a warning to similar players looking to take their place in government.

THE POLITICIANS AREN’T THE PROBLEM, THE VOTERS ARE

The key stumbling block to achieving this outcome, unfortunately, are the millions of American voters who put these radicals into office in the first place and continue to ardently support them. In fact, the radicalization of several slices of the American electorate is the key force spurring politicians to take more reckless postures – not the other way around.

Confronting this radicalization, and making serious efforts to turn it around, is the most critical challenge facing American civic leaders (the responsible ones, at least) for the next two generations.

It has taken 40 years to radicalize a portion of the American electorate. De-radicalizing the same voters will take at least as long and will be infinitely trickier given that it will necessarily involve appealing to the better nature of radicalized voters. As the old saying goes: “It’s easier to tear something down than to build it up.” Remediating a damaged building can be three times as dangerous as erecting a new one.

To begin the process of de-radicalization, it’s important to understand the path along which radicalization has proceeded, both on the Left and the Right, and particularly on the Right. The step-by-step process must be understood and the features and tactics employed by the ‘radicalizers’ must be countered with consummate skill.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE REPUBLICANS’ RIGHTWARD DRIFT

The simplest way to explain how roughly half of Republican voters were shifted from the center right to the hard right is to mark the major stages in that process.

The history that follows can be divided into five phases. The first, the Nixon-Reagan Phase, which might be termed the incubation period. Second, the Gingrich Phase, which we’ll term the ‘Shift in Spirit’. Third, the Bush-Rumsfeld Phase that we’ll call the Synergistic Phase. The fourth, Obstructionist Phase took hold during the Obama years. Fifth and finally – comes the Trump Phase, which we’ll call the ‘Radical Seizure of Initiative’.

Phase One – The Nixon-Reagan Period

• Beginning with the election of Richard Nixon in 1968 on a ‘law and order’ platform in the aftermath of widespread urban rioting, the resurgence of the American Right started as a reaction to what might be termed ‘New Social Movements’ that emerged in the 1960s. Nixon’s open resentment of ‘liberal elites’ rallied conservative voters against an emerging elite consensus on race, civil rights, and more permissive sexual behavior.
• Following Nixon’s resignation in 1974 in the face of probable impeachment, a share of right-leaning voters came to believe that Nixon was hounded from office by elites via legal maneuvers because they were unable to beat him in a fair election (Nixon won the 1972 election by a landslide).
• Ronald Reagan is elected President in 1980 in part by winning over so-called “Reagan Democrats” attracted by his opposition to affirmative action and other policies designed to assist racial minorities.
• A conservative media counter-complex begins forming in the late 1970s that includes local and syndicated talk radio programs, a small but growing number of conservative newspapers, and the direct mail business, which functions as a message system to conservative voters.
• In 1989, the Soviet Union collapses. The Republican base interprets the USSR’s collapse as a vindication of Reagan’s policies and their own beliefs.
• During the Nixon-Reagan Period, Republicans routinely cooperated with Democrats in Congress and state legislatures. Bipartisan passage of new legislation was common and rhetoric was restrained.

Phase Two — The Gingrich Period

• In the 1992 Republican primaries, far-right populist Patrick Buchanan humiliates incumbent President George Bush by defeating him in the New Hampshire primary.
• Buchanan is the keynote speaker at the 1992 Republican convention. He urges conservative voters to commence a ‘culture war‘ against liberal elites in the media, Hollywood and Washington, DC.
• Republicans take control of Congress after the 1994 mid-terms. Their electoral platform is masterminded by Georgia Representative Newt Gingrich, who becomes Speaker of the House.
• Gingrich commences a radical shift in style and tactics by Republicans. He openly disdains compromise, ratchets up rhetoric, and introduces new forms of political brinksmanship, including periodic shutdowns of the federal government through a calculated failure to pass annual budgets.
• Gingrich distributes copies of Saul Alinsky‘s manifesto ‘Rules for Radicals’ to his lieutenants as required reading and advocates ’embracing the tactics of the Left’ in order to defeat the Democrats and ‘Far Left’.
• In 1996, Rupert Murdoch launches Fox News, a right-of-center cable TV network, as an alternative to the major US news networks, which are seen by conservative-leaning voters as having a ‘liberal bias’.
• Newt Gingrich is a frequent guest on Fox News, both prior to and following his removal as Speaker of the House by Republican colleagues in 1999.
• The Gingrich Period marks a major shift in tone and spirit among both Republican elected leaders and base Republican voters. In this period, elected leaders were often more radical than their voters. In the absence of imposing foreign enemies, US conservatives began focusing their sights on their domestic Democratic opponents.

Phase Three — The Bush-Rumsfeld Period

• In 2000, George W. Bush, eldest son of the former President Bush, is elected President in a contested election. Republicans narrowly take Congress.
• In 2001, the Bush Administration shifts federal policy rightward on a number of issues in a manner unusually aggressive for a government without a large majority. Policy changes are often out of step with public opinion, but facilitated by riling up the base via talk radio, direct mail, and Fox News to bring voters into alignment with federal policy initiatives.
• The Sept. 11, 2001 attacks by radical Islamic terrorists on US soil brings a ‘rally round the Flag’ moment for Bush. The US invades Afghanistan. The Bush Administration swiftly pivots toward Iraq, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld becomes the Bush team’s public face advocating for military action against Iraq, albeit on flimsy pretenses.
• Republican politicians, along with some Democrats, join with right-leaning media in promoting the Iraq invasion, accusing opponents and hold-outs of lacking patriotism. Conservative talk radio frequently depict Democrats as disloyal to the US and even as ‘traitors’ for opposing the invasion.
• In March 2003, the US invades Iraq and swiftly conquers the Middle Eastern nation, displacing its fearsome dictator, Saddam Hussein.
• In 2004, as a popular insurgency against US occupation flares in Iraq, Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney approve the use of torture to extract information from insurgents and Al Qaeda-linked terrorists.
• In 2005, images of US soldiers torturing Iraqi captives are made public, causing a public relations scandal for the United States. Rumsfeld is unapologetic in his press briefings and televised appearances.
• Secretary Rumsfeld resigns in 2006. In the November mid-terms, the Democrats take control of Congress, taking 51 seats in the Senate and a net gain of 30 House seats to win the House.
• This period was marked by growing radicalization of Republican voters in response to both real threats (i.e. terrorism) and the stoking of voters’ fears by an increasingly powerful right-wing media complex and some evangelical Christian leaders. The key reality was synergy – the close collaboration of political leaders, the media complex, and activists to shape voter opinion.

Phase Four — The Obstructionist Period

• Following electoral defeats in 2006 and 2008, no single leader emerges on the Republican side to counter Democratic control of Congress, the White House, and many state governorships. Republican voters appear to lose faith in their elected representatives.
• The election of Barack Obama, the nation’s first black President, fills many conservative voters with unease. Obama’s unusual family history prompts speculation and conspiracy theories.
• Real estate developer Donald Trump starts the ‘Birther‘ movement by claiming that Obama was not born in the US and his birth certificate was faked. Millions of conservative voters take up the idea.
• In 2009 and 2010, the ‘Tea Party’ grass-roots conservative movement emerges in reaction to Obamacare, the 2008 Financial Crisis, federal bail-outs of US banks and auto companies, and President Obama himself.
• The ‘Tea Party‘ movement is heavily funded by Republican donors and supported by talk radio and other conservative media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal under the new ownership of Rupert Murdoch.
• Democrats lose control of Congress in the 2010 mid-terms. Once in control, Republicans resort to more brinksmanship, including new government shutdowns in 2011 and 2013. The aim of the Right is to stall the Obama administration’s agenda. Republicans do not present a coherent set of counter-proposals to voters.
• New right-wing media outlets such as Breitbart News and Infowars are launched. These hard edged outlets aim to ‘weaponize’ information against the Democrats – essentially code for using exaggerations to whip up voters. The modus operandi of these outlets is raw confrontation.

Phase Five – The Trump Phase

• Donald Trump announces his candidacy for President in 2015. His campaign employs the most ruthless and ethically questionable Republican political consultants and draws on players at Breitbart and Fox News (i.e. Steve Bannon, Sean Hannity) to provide messaging advice.
• Trump is elected President in 2016, defeating Democrat Hillary Clinton in a surprise upset. Trump’s campaigning is marked by harsh and abusive attacks on Clinton, flagrant lying, and a generally violent tone.
• Trump’s 2017-2021 Presidency is marked by the smashing of prior norms of political conduct and rhetoric. Trump is impeached twice, both times unsuccessfully. Among Trump’s most startling actions: refusing to concede defeat in the 2020 election, whipping up a mob of supporters to attack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and dismissing all criticism of him as ‘hoaxes’ generated by the ‘Fake News Media’.
• The most striking feature of the Trump years was the extent to which the conservative media, a majority of elected Republicans, and nearly 80% of Republican voters supported Trump’s behavior and rhetoric, including the ‘Big Lie’ that the 2020 election was stolen by the Democrats. Conformity was a remarkably consistent feature of this period.

NINE KEY TAKE-AWAYS RE: THE REPUBLICAN BASE

The history outlined briefly above allows us to draw several conclusions, which we enumerate below:

1. Radicalization proceeded gradually for 30 years, then accelerated as a result of media stoking and norm-breaking actions by political leaders.
2. The creation of a right-wing media counter-establishment was critical to radicalizing the base. The willingness of professed conservative news anchors and journalists to engage in fear-mongering and become tools of the institutional Republican Party was striking.
3. The normalization of the concept that ‘the Right must use the tactics and tools of the radical Left in order to win’ drove many other post-1995 shifts in thinking, behavior and actions by Right leaning media personalities and elected leaders. It’s effect was to erode prior Anglo-Saxon political behavior patterns and parliamentary tactics.
4. The advent of the Internet and social media allowed fringe groups and ideas to spread rapidly and penetrate the base. The official conservative media elites and elected leaders failed to push back against these trends.
5. The Republican establishment’s failure to realize that the 2016 convention was a repeat of 1952, when Gen. Douglas MacArthur, another far-right contender for office, narrowly failed to win nomination due to back-room maneuvering by Tom Dewey, Bob Taft and other Republican grandees, allowed Trump to win the Republican nomination uncontested.
6. Trump’s 2016 victory and subsequent consolidation of institutional power around himself normalized his behavior and kept the base on board.
7. The right-wing media complex’s 25 prior years of demonizing the Clintons, turning Hillary Clinton into a kind of ‘Krampus‘ for conservatives, also played a critical role in solidifying the base behind Trump due to an intense, irrational fear associated with Clinton.
8. Roughly 56% of Republican voters are now radicalized if we consider voters who believe the ‘Big Lie’ to have crossed the ‘radical line’
9. The Republican base has become sufficiently radical that Republican elected leaders live in constant fear of displeasing them. This fear extends to contradicting any beliefs held by voters, and fear of violence.

LITTLE ROOM TO MANEUVER

Perhaps the key problem associated with a radicalized voter base is that it affords elected political leaders little room to maneuver. If every attempt at compromise with the other side is shouted down as a betrayal, then what is the incentive to compromise? Why act constructively?

Republican elected leaders essentially live inside a small and narrow box – somewhat like a coffin – that keeps getting smaller (and hotter!). Boxed in by the acid scrutiny of their own media minders, Republican Senators and Representatives have incentives to obstruct the other side, but little motive to formulate a good and well-informed policy alternative.

With elected leaders caught in an ever-tightening vice, the most extreme donors and media complex owners and effectively squeeze and twist the politicians into driving the political culture deeper into effective ‘Weimarization’ or authoritarianism at will.

HOW TO DRAIN THE ABCESS

It’s evident that these trends can’t continue for much longer. The abcess of radicalization must be drained before the infection spreads deeper into the body politic. The parallel radicalization of the Democratic Party – not as far advanced as on the Republican side, but also worrisome – will tend to make matters more complicated than if the problem were only on one side.

Here are a few suggestions:

1. Break up the right-wing media complex. A series of hostile takeovers of conservative media outlets by new owners committed to a shift in the style and content of contemporary conservatism is essential. As long as Fox News broadcasts the same content as it has for the last five years, there is no way to ‘de-radicalize’ voters. Ditto with talk radio.
2. De-fund the political campaigns of the most extreme actors. Many corporations committed to eliminate funding for the Congressional campaigns of 145 representatives who voted not to certify the 2020 Presidential election. But this has yet to be acted upon.
3. Form civic organizations to end gerrymandering. This is already occurring in a small number of US states. However, moves to deny radicals safe seats by re-drawing Congressional and state electoral boundaries will be critical to creating incentives for aspiring politicians to lean to the center and focus on solving the problems important to voters.
4. Lean on social media firms to clean up misinformation. This process began late in the 2020 election and is proceeding. However, the social media firms need to be kept under constant scrutiny and pressure so that they will act with a modicum of responsibility to police seditious, extreme and misleading content on their media platforms.
5. Create a new, non-governmental institution to regulate the Internet. Internet content must be regulated, but the US federal government cannot have responsibility. Politicians cannot determine what is the truth, but non-political actors working within some kind of new institution that exists separate from government must begin this process.
6. Former elected leaders, journalists and retired political operatives must be ambassadors against misinformation in their own communities.
7. New civic organizations and programs dedicated to political de-radicalization must be formed by credible ex-radicals.

These are only first steps. It will take 40 years to dial back radicalization, if it can be done. De-radicalizing the Right is the most urgent task, but the Left will present similar challenges in the coming years.

In future posts, we will address the first recommendation outlined above – breaking up the right-wing media complex – along with the fifth and most controversial recommendation re: regulating the Internet. Look for those postings in March and July 2022. We’ll also address the creeping leftward radicalization of elite Democratic operatives and activists in a post scheduled for early autumn 2022.

Until next time, I remain —

Greymantle